New Grammar Schools: good or bad?

I live in a grammar area. I'd like to see grammars abolished. I say this as a parent who feels forced to let their child sit the exam in 2 weeks despite the stress because a) she wants to/needs it for the nearest school/to try for the school she likes and b) we're out of catchment for our two nearest good non-grammars (people obviously buy near them and catchments are shrinking. For one the furthest distance based intake last year as 0.9 miles). Otherwise its bussing her out of the city or inadequate schools. Often these schools get the kids who need the most support but never get the money to give it. In Finland they banned private/tiered education attempts and saw wholesale improvement because you weren't allowing any schools to just cream off the top academic students/draw in the wealthiest parents and leave other schools to struggle to cope with limited resources/funding. If parents wanted to put money into education it benefited a broader spectrum of kids than just their own kid. If you have to send your kid locally you do more to make that school better. In the UK they even manage to try to punish non-grammar kid's families financially as they'll tell you you can't get transport assistance for not going to your nearest school. The two nearest us are grammars, one all boys DD can't go to, and two with the tiny catchments so despite the fact we'd be forced to send her further away they old the refuse financial help for transport.

If there is money to spend on education it should be spent on failing state schools in deprived areas to benefit all kids, not just the 'academic ones' stupid idea and agree that it would only benefit the ones who knows how to find a local tutor to get their kids in

I'm on the fence with this. Because in theory I don't think for society, Grammars are a good thing.

But. I have a child who has ASD. Likely, in years gone by she's had been diagnosed with Aspergers (like me). Autism with no learning difficulties, quite the opposite. She's young at the moment so I won't have to think about her next school for a couple of years but already she is academically 2+ years ahead of the 'expected' standard in all areas. She goes to a great Primary, but the comp secondary schools around here 1) aren't great with SEN and 2) are known for having poor behaviour/picking on bright kids etc etc. I'm not making assumptions, i have family working in both schools, friends whose children attend them and I also work in some capacity with SEN/schools in this area.

We have a fairly local grammar school and I won't lie I am starting to consider it for the future if nothing changes in the next 3 years. Because I want her to go somewhere that her being bright and high achieving isn't something to be teased about. I want her to go somewhere where really disruptive and poor behaviour just isn't tolerated. I don't want her, who struggles socially way more than most of her peers anyway, to have to spark and love of learning knocked out of her in an attempt to 'fit in' with peers.

Does that make me a massive hypocrite? Yes, probably. But if the option is there, damn right I will send her to a place where she is supported to learn to the best of her ability, celebrated for achieving and be happy in that, rather than a comp down the road where her being good at school work will be bullied out of her before she finishes year seven. She's a child that needs rules, likes routine and gets very anxious when other children misbehave and break the rules. That sort of behaviour is less tolerated at a grammar - or at the one I've been looking at, anyway. I'm not a big enough person to make a sacrifice on her behalf for the good of society, on principle. I'll hold my hands up and own that.

I also agree that SEN provision needs to improve across the board. Closing SEN schools in the guise of being inclusive was a huge error. It's not inclusive to shove square pegs in round holes. Some SEN children are fine - and thrive if well supported - in mainstream schools. Some, without doubt need and benefit from specialist placements and we need way more of these. Then you have whole raft of children with SEN in the middle who currently wouldn't get near a specialist placement as their support needs aren't deemed high enough but equally will never, no matter how well supported they are or what their academic ability is (and some of these children are very bright!) be able to cope in a mainstream classroom. These children - if there were sufficient places - would ideally be in hubs attached to mainstream schools but these hubs are few and far between. The ones we have locally are brilliant but the spaces are so so limited and there are zero in secondary schools.

The whole education system in this country is a mess, and children are being failed left right and centre.

Yes, a private sector exists in Spain but it is very different from what I have seen in the UK. There is nothing like the long history of the most prestigious universities being dominated by ex-pupils of certain public schools like in England.

There are private schools in Spain as well

@Avarca as a teacher I won't work in private schools as I don't agree with them. I have many colleagues who feel the same. I'd love to get rid of them as I'm v sure if rich people in power had to send their kids to state schools they'd be more proactive in making them better. But not sure how we go about changing a system that is heavily biased towards those in power. Maybe one day 😊

I am not a fan of grammar schools. I am from Spain where education tends to be more egalitarian. I believe that all children should go through the same education system of good schools. What I don't understand is why on Mumsnet everyone is so up in arms about grammar school creating an unfair bias when the elephant in the room is the two-tier private and state system and the embedded inequality that comes from that. It seems to be the root of so much that is wrong in the UK. Is it that the class system is so deeply embedded in the British psyche that people are just prepared to accept that upper classes have a right to buy better education and all the privilege that goes with it but any other type of segregation is shameful?

Thought this might be of interest. It a blog (I saw it on Michael Rosen's Twitter) from people who went to a secondary modern. And it made them feel like a failure and not good enough. That's what Grammars do to children.

secmod.blogspot.com/?m=1

The 11+ was the brainchild of Cyril Burt. But Cyril Burt was a fraud, and his "research" was falsified. See here. So the 11+ and grammar school system was created without a shred of real evidence of its effectiveness.
A second issue is that a tripartite system was planned, with a middle tier of technical schools in between the (academic/grammar) and (vocational/secondary modern), but the middle tier was never implemented. So the three-tier tripartite system which had worked well in e.g. Germany, never came to pass in the UK. Instead we ended up with a bipartite system which even 50 years ago was acknowledged to be too crude and failing too many children.

The 11+ is detrimental to the majority of children in 11+ areas who are forced to attend schools in which most of the bright kids have been creamed off by neighbouring grammars. It hardly matters whether the former are labelled secondary modern or, as Chris Woodhead called them "comprehensive minuses", i.e. schools with few attainers in the top quartile.

If anyone is so convinced that a two-tier system is a great idea, let them try to sell it to the public as "Bring back secondary moderns". Because every time you create a grammar, you are effectively creating 2 or 3 secondary moderns in the surrounding area.

What is actually needed is a properly funded education system, depoliticized education policy and evidence-based practice.
Resurrecting the "grammar school debate" is just a form of distraction theft by a party that has used rose-tinted 1950's nostalgia to it's advantage before, and is too intellectually bankrupt to think of anything better.

@AmeliaEarhart There was at mine 30 years ago. I ended up trying to commit suicide because it was so bad. Sixth form was much better because the troublemakers left, but I had to go through five years of hell to get to that point.

Even 30 years ago at the state comp I went to (proper comp, in a county with no grammars) bullying for intelligence and academic aspiration wasn’t A Thing. Yes, there was bullying - over stuff like having the wrong trainers or a bad haircut, which happens in every type of secondary - but not for being in the top sets, or wanting to go to Oxbridge or Medical school (which some did, including my brother). Some peoples views of state comprehensives are apparently based on the Beano!

(Don’t get me wrong - there are aspects of the Shanghai Maths approach that have improved Maths teaching in my school, and I suspect many others. However, it has required a huge number of iterations, a lot of time and much hard work to adapt the approach to the very different context)

The thing is, a country’s education system does not exist independently of it overall society and culture. As anyone who has taught through the fashion for ‘Shanghai Maths’ knows, you can’t just take something that works in 1 country, impose it in another and expect success, because that success depends in societal attitudes, the socio-economic realities of each location, structural approaches to teacher timetabling and pay, outside school education such as coaching etc etc.

Finnish schools are effective - in Finland. While it is instructive to look in forensic, sceptical detail at what works in other countries and why, it does not mean that these approaches will necessarily have the same success in England.

www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/education/

this report has some interesting data on education systems . We score poorly on years in education , social inequality and several other factors . Also in the 2019 survey the U.K. scored bottom on the mental well-being of teenagers with 1/4 of 15 year olds reporting being bullied in school and 71/72 for for a positive answer to ‘my life has a clear meaning and purpose ‘. This should be a massive wake up call for anyone in education, the old form of selective education may not be right but that doesn’t mean the current one is either .

Once again, please tell us which countries' systems you think we should be emulating? Where have they got the model right, do you think?

But how on Earth do you know at age 10? Even a lot of SEN isn't really picked up by then

Again, you don't have to. Although there should be FAR better provision for both identifying potential SEN earlier, diagnosing it without a 3-5 year wait and then another fight to get an EHCP and then schools not implementing them anyway, etc; but I digress.

There can be a system designed where there is fluidity in the system with children moving to places that suit them. IF we designed a proper education system and funded it properly.

Nobody is suggesting a return to "do this exam at 11 and it's all decided then", rolled out countrywide. It doesn't need to be like that. A more child-focused system with different schools to cater to ALL different talents and abilities and skills and needs could be designed, it's not as hard as they'd like you to believe. We can build space rockets and people believe this is impossible to achieve? It's not.

So, sacrificing many people's chance to reach their potential to benefit others. Like a human shield. With children. Sounds super ethical...

I would also posit that the evidence the a comprehensive system where we chuck everyone together is better at a population level is tenuous - being very generous - as there are NO studies to support this in comparison to the type of system I suggested upthread. In fact, in the countries that have the types of situation I described, the mental health of children is significantly better (UK scores one of the lowest scores in the OECD for this for teenagers/ young adults) and they have better outcomes on general educational attainment, lower levels of young adults not in education or employment, and higher productivity. Hmmm... all coincidence?

I would suggest instead a total reevaluation of it all, rebuilding from the ground up based on models that we know work, because they have worked in other countries for decades with better overall outcome for everyone.

This insistence against all empirical evidence that the comprehensive model is the best idea is a bit like the UK fundamentalism about the NHS when we know that better models for healthcare that actually work and improve patient outcomes exist, but refuse to adopt them regardless.

I agree. My DCs go to a school where results are very polarised (school overall performs poorly but there are some very high performing students), my DCs say no bullying.

I agree. My dd is extremely academic and she has tons of friends. Her friends make jokey comments about her intelligence but there's never any hint of bullying or nastiness.

I did get bullied a little bit during the early years of secondary school, but to be honest, I think that was more the result of poor social skills than being clever. I learned how to talk to people, and everything got better.

For those on here that seem to imply or even state that state comps are places where people are bullied for being clever or trying hard - that view is very outdated. It was often the way when secondary moderns converted many years ago. All the high schools that I know of in our city have very high expectations & reward systems. I have friends with DC in at least 12 different highs. None report any serious discipline issues. All say their DC are getting a good education

But how on Earth do you know at age 10? Even a lot of SEN isn't really picked up by then

Bad. Awful. Divisive. Favours the wealthy and leads to kids being tutored to death and travelling miles

No. But we shouldn't have the current "grammar" areas.

All or nothing. Either make it available to all areas or don't.

It's seen as "free private school" to the areas that have it. Weed out the less desirable element.

by triple science I guess you mean gcse as that’s where it’s commonly used? Plenty would do DT, which would be the nearest equivalent
the carpentry described is at college so probably a vocational qualification and would be full time into a trade, so no opportunity to do it with 3 science a levels. nearest equivalent would be DT a level. I imagine physics may be quite complimentary to carpentry if you’re thinking about constructing things. Whilst kids are currently pushed towards maths with science traditionally science was more linked with the arts